Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

    I was watching NBATV last night (the replay of Peter Vescey's comments) and he said that even though Rick signed an extension over the summer he is not safe.(Vescey speak for his job is not safe) That was all he said and he did not elaborate.


    Then I read MM blog and it seems players are starting to grumble in the locker room.


    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...nd_more_a.html

    One of the biggest winners in the trade was Rick Carlisle. There was mounting frustration in the locker room over his controlling coaching style, although nobody wanted to speak out publicly. Now more than a quarter of his roster has been turned over, bringing a renewed grace period.

    __________________________________
    So what is going on here. I will reserve my comments and judgements until later, but I'm curious what everyone thinks about this.


    .

  • #2
    Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

    I had the thought the after this year, Rick was going to move into the front office. And if thats true, we should just wait until the offseason and get a coach that actually can coach the style of play the organization wants it to.
    I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

      How many of us have seen the facial expressions of the players who are/were trying to figure out their role/position? I certainly am not surprised at all to hear that there is grumbling going on. I feel like Carlisle is the best we can get right now but he is very inconsistant. He says one thing and does another. He wants uptempo......right. I don't think he has a lot of security with the pacers after this season at all. It won't matter
      how many new players we get, RC will not change his plan. I think Unclebuck is right in saying this may be somewhat of a grace period given to RC.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

        Yeah, I updated JayRedd's Vecsey report in the trade thread with his full quote about Rick.

        Here are your choices:

        (1) The team is committed to getting a group of players Rick *can* coach.
        (2) No matter what they do, Rick doesn't have the "people skills" of a HC. Best case scenario: he just hasn't developed those people skills yet.
        (3) Vecsey's blowing smoke about Rick's status to emphasize just how badly the franchise wanted to get rid of Jackson and his lockerroom/ questioning authority disruptions
        (4) Donnie and Larry want to give Rick a period of time with the roster *they* like to see how he does with it
        (5) Tinsley really is the next to go
        (6) Tinsley isn't going anywhere and Rick is the next to go

        I don't know what to think yet. My opinion on Rick is well known. Having said that, the Pacers have nearly accomplished the impossible, since the brawl only three players remain: JO, Tinsley, Harrison. (And that's why you usually ship out the coach.)

        I'm not opposed to giving Rick time with this new roster to see what he can do. But I'm certainly not opposed to a change, either.

        Ike, Dunn, and Murphy may be half-court players, but they are not "stand around and watch somebody else play one-on-one players either."

        The Pacers MUST be more aggressive in the half court offense, and they must try to run and get easy baskets when they can, or Rick "is" a big part of the problem.

        For example, nobody is ever going to accuse the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Ainge/DJ Celtics of being an athletic, running team. But they played at a much faster pace than the current Pacers.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

          Where's the unknown in the this? HARRINGTON questioned the system, twice in public. Done.

          Al hit the bench in the 2nd half vs NJ and the comments were "it meant nothing"...um, really. Looks like it did actually. And then in the Kravitz thread I noted Rick's specific criticism of Al - the team scored worse on fast breaks with Al at SF and that's where Al wanted to play, ie "I did what Al wanted and he wasn't good at it."


          Saras, while more stable this year, certainly hadn't earned Rick's trust as a big minutes PG.

          Jack got the PT that indicated support from Rick, but if you'll recall my "no more fastbreaks" thread and comments by others all over the place regarding the breaks, Jack was probably the worst player on the break the team had, he was terrible at it. Add to this the public rips on Rick by Jack at times during games (as he came out), and I think you see a pretty consistant message in this trade...

          Enough. Shut up and play the system because without it you guys aren't that good a team.


          If they really want to run, it wasn't going to work with Al at SF or Jack at SG. Rick's numbers on break points with Al at SF support that view, and we all saw how poor Jack was as a break finisher.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

            okay this is exactly what i said but then some1 deleted my post and gave me a 3-point infraction

            wtf? there's no freedom of speech here? what kinda forum...

            i simply don't think Rick should be our coach anymore. i wish bird would come back as head coach

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

              Originally posted by GetMoney View Post
              okay this is exactly what i said but then some1 deleted my post and gave me a 3-point infraction

              wtf? there's no freedom of speech here? what kinda forum...

              i simply don't think Rick should be our coach anymore. i wish bird would come back as head coach
              It wasn't what you said (in terms of the Pacers) that got the infraction.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                what did i say?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                  I don't know what to think yet. My opinion on Rick is well known. Having said that, the Pacers have nearly accomplished the impossible, since the brawl only three players remain: JO, Tinsley, Harrison.
                  There are actually four players left from the brawl. You forgot about Foster.

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                  For example, nobody is ever going to accuse the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Ainge/DJ Celtics of being an athletic, running team. But they played at a much faster pace than the current Pacers.
                  The whole league plays slower than teams did in the 80's. I quoted an article just last week about how scoring is down over 17pts/game since the '85 season.

                  Here's another site, stops at the 03-04 season, that has the scoring dropping even throughout the 90s and 00s.
                  http://www.baseballcrank.com/archive...tball_shoo.php

                  You need to look no further than the rest of the league to figure out why the Pacers aren't doing as much running. The whole entire NBA has slowed down.

                  EDIT: Here's a more updated league scoring average list
                  http://www.basketball-reference.com/...gue_stats.html

                  Note: The P's were 3pts short of the league average for PPG last year.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    There are actually four players left from the brawl. You forgot about Foster.
                    Well, that's easy to do.

                    The whole league plays slower than teams did in the 80's. I quoted an article just last week about how scoring is down over 17pts/game since the '85 season.

                    Here's another site, stops at the 03-04 season, that has the scoring dropping even throughout the 90s and 00s.
                    http://www.baseballcrank.com/archive...tball_shoo.php

                    You need to look no further than the rest of the league to figure out why the Pacers aren't doing as much running. The whole entire NBA has slowed down.

                    EDIT: Here's a more updated league scoring average list
                    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...gue_stats.html

                    Note: The P's were 3pts short of the league average for PPG last year.
                    Most importantly, as I've said hundreds of times around here - the cause of the decreased scoring is not "better defense" but its slower play and fewer possessions per game. Control-freak coaches want the players to grind out the shotclock instead of take advantage of early opportunities to score.

                    That slow-moving Celtic team could generate ten to twenty more possessions per game.

                    LET 'EM PLAY!!
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                      Some of Bird's comments yesterday about rebounding, playing hard, stopping dribble penetration seemed to be directed more at Rick and coahcing staff then at the players.

                      I have a meeting to go to

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                        Originally posted by GetMoney View Post
                        what did i say?
                        The posts you've been warned about or given an infraction for have all been either demeaning or hostile.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                          Most importantly, as I've said hundreds of times around here - the cause of the decreased scoring is not "better defense" but its slower play and fewer possessions per game. Control-freak coaches want the players to grind out the shotclock instead of take advantage of early opportunities to score.

                          That slow-moving Celtic team could generate ten to twenty more possessions per game.

                          LET 'EM PLAY!!
                          I agree, but the league is filled with those types of coaches. So unless you find the next Don Nelson (who didn't have a team even get above the lowest Celtic PPG average of 106 in the 80s, from this season back to 1998 and I stopped looking after that) you're stuck with a grind it out coach.

                          You're not gonna get Mike D'Antoni or George Karl. And are you going to want Sam Mitchell, Bob Hill, or Eddie Jordan? Those are the only 5 coaches that cracked 100PPG last season.

                          If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                            I think that this is Rick's last year with the Pacers, it has to be.

                            If the Pacers want to get out and run the break more Rick has to go. He is to controlling. I don't think that he has the personality to let a team be free you could say.

                            Not only Carlise, I don't see the coaching staff as a whole being fit. I did before and I still do now, have a big problem with no defenseive minded coach. Not only that, one of our assistants is here just to babysit Jamaal Tinsley. We need to make a coaching change this summer.

                            Rick is a good coach. We could do much worse. But to get where we want to go Rick has to go.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              The posts you've been warned about or given an infraction for have all been either demeaning or hostile.
                              thas just the way i talk

                              no1 else seemed to have a problem with them... are you rick carlisle?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X